Galatians 1:19

Gal_1:19

Save James the Lords brother.

James appears, to whatever source we may turn for information, as the one authoritative ruler, the one undoubted representative of the Christian society. But whatever the influence he exercised, or the authority be maintained, it was due not to his apostleship, but to those relations which are brought before us by the epithets affixed to his name, James the brother of our Lord, James the Just. If we open the contemporary Christian records it is to his decision (Act_15:13) that the council of Jerusalem bows; and to him, taking precedence even of Cephas and John, that Paul communicates the revelation that had been entrusted to him (Gal_2:9). If we turn to later traditions preserved in Hegessipus, or in the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies, he appears before us as the one mysterious bulwark of the chosen people; invested with a priestly sanctity before which the pontificate of Aaron fades into insignificance--as the one universal bishop of the Christian Church. If we look to the impression produced on the mind of the Jewish people, we find that he alone of all the apostles has obtained a place in their national records, whether in the simple narrative of Josephus, or in the wild legends of the Talmud. He was emphatically the Just; the predictions of the Just one were regarded as fulfilled in his person; the people vied with each other to touch the hem of his garment; after the manner of Elijah he was reported in the droughts of Palestine to have called down rain; and with the austere features, linen ephod, bare feet, long locks and unshorn beard of the Nazarite, he was believed to have gathered round him the admiring populace to ask: What is the gate of salvation? And in that striking scene, when at the close of a long life he is described as standing on the front of the temple and bearing witness to the coming judgment of the Son of man, it was with a feeling of bitter disappointment that the Scribes and Pharisees are represented as rushing upon him with the cry, Woe, Woe, the Just one also is deceived; and in his cruel death, the Jewish historian, no less than the Christian martyrologist, saw the filling up of the cup of guilt which was to hasten on the final catastrophe of the apostate nation. His chair was preserved as a relic till the fourth century, and the pillar which marked the spot where he fell long remained in the valley of Jehoshaphat, under the precipice from which he was thrown. (Dean Stanley.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gal 1:19. Τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ Κυρίου, the Lord’s brother) cousin of Jesus. There was no other James, the Lord’s brother, and an apostle.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gal_1:19. But another of the apostles saw I not, save James the brother of the Lord. Thus this James is distinguished indeed from the circle of the twelve (1Co_15:5) to which Peter belonged, but yet is included in the number of the apostles, namely in the wider sense (comp. 1Co_15:7; 1Co_9:5); which explains the merely supplementary mention of this apostle. After εἰ μή we must supply not εἶδον merely (as Grotius, Fritzsche ad Matth. p. 482, Winer, Bleek in Stud. u. Krit. 1836, p. 1059, Wieseler), but, as the context requires, εἶδον τὸν ἀπόστολον.

ἕτερον is not qualitative here, as in Gal_1:6, but stands in contrast to the one who is named, Peter. In addition to the latter he saw not one more of the apostles, except only that he saw the apostle in the wider sense of the term

James the brother of the Lord (who indeed belonged to the church at Jerusalem as its president),a fact which conscientiously he will not leave unmentioned.

On the point that James the brother of the Lord was not James the son of Alphaeus,as, following Clemens Alex., Jerome, Augustine, Pelagius, Chrysostom, and Theodoret, most modern scholars, and among the expositors of the epistle Matthies, Usteri, Schott, Baumgarten-Crusius, Jatho, Hofmann, Reithmayr, maintain,but a real brother of Jesus (Mat_13:35; Mar_6:3), the son of Mary, called James the Just (Heges. in Eus. ii. 23), who, having been a Nazarite from his birth, and having become a believer after the resurrection of Jesus (1Co_15:7; Act_1:14), attained to very high apostolic reputation among the Jewish Christians (Gal_2:9), and was the most influential presbyter of the church at Jerusalem,[37] see on Act_12:17; 1Co_9:5; Huther on Ep. of James, Introd. § 1; Laurent, neutest. Stud. p. 175 ff. By the more precise designation, τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου, he is distinguished not only from the elder James, the brother of John (Hofmann and others), but also from James the son of Alphaeus, who was one of the twelve. Comp. Victorinus, cum autem fratrem dixit, apostolum negavit. The whole figment of the identity of this James with the son of Alphaeus is a result of the unscriptural (Mat_1:25; Luk_2:7) although ecclesiastically orthodox (Form. Conc. p. 767) belief (extending beyond the birth of Christ) in the perpetual virginity of Mary. Comp. on Mat_12:46; 1Co_9:5. We may add that the statement, that Paul at this time saw only Peter and James at Jerusalem, is not at variance with the inexact expression τοὺς ἀποστόλους, Act_9:27, but is an authentic historical definition of it, of a more precise character.

[37] Wieseler also justly recognises here the actual brother of Jesus, but holds the James, who is named in Gal_2:9; Gal_2:12 (and Act_12:17; Act_15:13; Act_15:21; 1Co_15:7) as the head of the Jewish Christians, not to be identical with this brother of the Lord, but to be the apostle James the son of Alphaeus; affirming that it was the latter also who was called ὁ δίκαιος. See, however, on Gal_2:9. The Gospel of the Hebrews, in Jerome, Vir. ill. 2, puts James the Just among the apostles who partook of the last Supper with Jesus, but nevertheless represents him as a brother of the Lord, for it makes him to be addressed by the Risen One as frater mi. Wieseler, indeed, understands frater mi in a spiritual sense, as in Joh_20:17, Mat_28:10. But, just because the designation of a James as ἀδελφὸς τοῦ κυρίον is so solemn, this interpretation appears arbitrary; nor do we find that anywhere in the Gospels Jesus addressed the disciples as brethren.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Gal 1:19 . εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον . εἰ μή may either state an exception to the preceding negative clause (= except, save ), or merely qualify it (= but only ), as it does in Luk 4:26 , to none of them, sc. , the widows in Israel, but only to Sarepta in Sidon ; and in Gal 1:7 , no other Gospel, only ( εἰ μή ) there are some that pervert the Gospel . The latter appears to be its meaning here. If James had been entitled an Apostle, the author would probably have written that he saw no other Apostles but Peter and James. But here he states emphatically that he saw no second ( ἕτερον ) Apostle, only James. The Epistle, like the Acts (see Act 12:17 , Act 15:13 , Act 21:18 ), fully recognises the leading position of James in the local Church ( cf. Gal 2:9 ; Gal 2:12 ); and the ecclesiastical tradition which entitles him Bishop of Jerusalem corresponds to this. All the evidence left of his life suggests that he clung throughout his Christian life to Jerusalem and did not undertake such missionary labours as would entitle him to the designation of Apostle. τὸν ἀδελφὸν … James is here described as the brother of the Lord in order to distinguish him from James the son of Zebedee, who was living at the time of Paul’s first visit; but elsewhere as James: after the death of the other James there could be no question who was meant.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Compare Act 9:27-28, wherein Luke, as an historian, describes more generally what Paul, the subject of the history, himself details more particularly. The history speaks of "apostles"; and Paul's mention of a second apostle, besides Peter, reconciles the Epistle and the history. At Stephen's martyrdom, and the consequent persecution, the other ten apostles, agreeably to Christ's directions, seem to have soon (though not immediately, Act 8:14) left Jerusalem to preach elsewhere. James remained in charge of the mother church, as its bishop. Peter, the apostle of the circumcision, was present during Paul's fifteen days' stay; but he, too, presently after (Act 9:32), went on a circuit through Judea.

James, the Lord's brother--This designation, to distinguish him from James the son of Zebedee, was appropriate while that apostle was alive. But before Paul's second visit to Jerusalem (Gal 2:1; Act 15:1-4), he had been beheaded by Herod (Act 12:2). Accordingly, in the subsequent mention of James here (Gal 2:9, Gal 2:12), he is not designated by this distinctive epithet: a minute, undesigned coincidence, and proof of genuineness. James was the Lord's brother, not in our strict sense, but in the sense, "cousin," or "kinsman" (Mat 28:10; Joh 20:17). His brethren are never called "sons of Joseph," which they would have been had they been the Lord's brothers strictly. However, compare Psa 69:8, "I am an alien to my mother's children." In Joh 7:3, Joh 7:5, the "brethren" who believed not in Him may mean His near relations, not including the two of His brethren, that is, relatives (James and Jude) who were among the Twelve apostles. Act 1:14, "His brethren," refer to Simon and Joses, and others (Mat 13:55) of His kinsmen, who were not apostles. It is not likely there would be two pairs of brothers named alike, of such eminence as James and Jude; the likelihood is that the apostles James and Jude are also the writers of the Epistles, and the brethren of Jesus. James and Joses were sons of Alpheus and Mary, sister of the Virgin Mary.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 19. James the Lord's brother.] Dr. Paley observes: There were at Jerusalem two apostles, or at least two eminent members of the Church, of the name of James. This is distinctly inferred from the Acts of the Apostles, Ac 12:2, where the historian relates the death of James, the brother of John; and yet, in Ac 15:13-21, and in Ac 21:18, he records a speech delivered by James in the assembly of the apostles and elders. In this place JAMES, the Lord's brother, is mentioned thus to distinguish him from JAMES the brother of John. Some think there were three of this name:-

1. JAMES, our Lord's brother, or cousin, as some will have it;

2. JAMES, the son of Alphaeus; and

3. JAMES, the son of Zebedee. But the two former names belong to the same person.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

19. But I saw no other of the apostles. This is added to make it evident that he had but one object in his journey, and attended to nothing else.

Except James. Who this James was, deserves inquiry. Almost all the ancients are agreed that he was one of the disciples, whose surname was “Oblias” and “The Just,” and that he presided over the church at Jerusalem. Yet others think that he was the son of Joseph by another wife, and others (which is more probable) that he was the cousin of Christ by the mother’s side: but as he is here mentioned among the apostles, I do not hold that opinion. Nor is there any force in the defense offered by Jerome, that the word Apostle is sometimes applied to others besides the twelve; for the subject under consideration is the highest rank of apostleship, and we shall presently see that he was considered one of the chief pillars. (Galatians 2:9.) It appears to me, therefore, far more probable, that the person of whom he is speaking is the son of Alpheus.

The rest of the apostles, there is reason to believe, were scattered through various countries; for they did not idly remain in one place. Luke relates that Paul was brought by Barnabas to the apostles. (Acts 9:27.) This must be understood to relate, not to the twelve, but to these two apostles, who alone were at that time residing in Jerusalem.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(19) Other of the apostles.—From the form of this phrase it would appear that James, the Lord’s brother, was considered to be an Apostle. In what sense he was an Apostle will depend very much upon who he was (see the next Note). If he was a cousin of our Lord, and identical with James the son of Alphæus, then he was one of the original Twelve. If he was not the son of Alphæus, but either the son of Joseph alone or of Joseph and Mary, then the title must be given to him in the wider sense in which it is applied to Paul and Barnabas.

The Lord’s brother.—What relationship is indicated by this? The question has been already dealt with in the Notes on the Gospels. (See Notes on Mat_12:46; Mat_13:55; Joh_7:3; Joh_7:5.) The present writer has nothing to add, except to express his entire agreement with what has been there said, and his firm conviction that the theory which identifies the “brethren of the Lord” with His cousins, the sons of Clopas, is untenable. A full account of the James who is here mentioned will be found in the Introduction to the Epistle which goes by his name.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

19. “Other of the apostles I saw not, but James, the brother of the Lord.” The A. V. would lead to the conclusion that James was one of the Apostles, in the same sense as Peter was an Apostle, i.e. one of the Twelve. But it is almost certain that ‘save’ is an incorrect rendering, as in Luk_4:26-27 (where indeed it makes nonsense of the passage). See note on ch. Gal_2:16. St James may still have been spoken of as an Apostle in the wider sense, in which it is now generally admitted the term is used in N. T.

James, the Lord’s brother] How are we to identify this James? And what are we to understand by the designation ‘the Lord’s brother’?

(1) Two of the Twelve bore the name of James; one, the son of Zebedee and brother of John, the other the son of Alphæus (or Cleopas). It is agreed on all hands that the former is not the James here spoken of. It is also highly improbable that he is identical with the son of Alphæus, called ‘James the less’ (literally ‘the Little’) in Mar_15:40. If St Paul had conferred with two of the number of the Twelve, his characteristic candour would have led him to state the fact distinctly. He admits that James was one of the Apostolic body, but he was not, like Cephas, one of the original Twelve. We therefore conclude that this James was the president of the Church at Jerusalem (see Act_15:13; Act_21:18) and distinct both from the son of Zebedee, who fell by the sword of Herod (Act_12:2), and from the son of Alphæus[25]. In the Book of Common Prayer ‘St James the Apostle’ is identified with the ‘brother of John’, and the other St James (coupled with St Philip) with the author of the Epistle, and brother of Jude.

[25] “I count it the more probable opinion that this James was not one of the Twelve”. Dr Salmon, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 478.

(2) It would seem that whatever we understand by the ‘Lord’s brethren’, they were not of the number of the Twelve. For we are expressly told that towards the close of our Lord’s earthly ministry, His brethren did not believe on Him (Joh_7:5).

Three views of the relationship here expressed have been held by expositors of Scripture. (a) Some contend that the expression ‘brethren’ is to be understood literally of sons of the Virgin Mary and Joseph, born after the birth of our Lord. This opinion is maintained by Archdeacon Farrar in Dict. of the Bible, Art. ‘Brother’; but it is rejected by all who with the chief Patristic writers insist on the perpetual virginity of Mary. (b) Others regard these ‘brethren’ as cousins of our Lord, the sons of Mary (sister of the Virgin) and Cleopas. This may be dismissed for the reason stated already—that one of them was of the number of the Twelve, and therefore could not be described as not believing on Him. (c) A third hypothesis is that they were sons of Joseph by a former marriage, and therefore half-brothers of our Lord. (That they were the offspring of a Levirate marriage of Joseph with Mary wife of Cleopas, after the death of the latter, may be mentioned as an instance of groundless assumption, only to be discarded.)

The choice then lies between the first and the third view. In a case where the arguments are almost evenly balanced, it is not easy to decide, but on the whole they seem to favour the conclusion that the ‘brethren’ were sons of Joseph by a former marriage, and therefore ‘half-brothers’ or step-brothers of our Lord. In support of this conclusion we note that if Joseph is called the father of our Lord (Luk_2:48), Joseph’s sons may without great violence be called His brethren. For a full discussion of the subject, see Dict. of the Bible, ut supra, Bp Lightfoot, Dissertation II, Alford on Mat_13:56.

The other Apostles were probably absent from Jerusalem at this time, on a missionary tour, visiting and confirming the Churches of Judæa and Galilee and Samaria.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But other of the apostles saw I none,.... This is observed to show, that as he did not receive the Gospel from Peter, so neither from any of the other apostles, whom he did not so much as see, much less converse with;

save James the Lord's brother; not James the son of Zebedee, the brother of John, whom Herod slew with the sword; but James the son of Alphaeus, he who made the speech in the synod at Jerusalem, Act 15:13 was the writer of the epistle which bears his name, and was the brother of Joses, Simon, and Judas, who are called the brethren of Christ, Mat 13:55 and that because they were the kinsmen and relations of Christ according to the flesh, it being usual with the Jews to call such brethren. The relation came in and stood thus; this James was James the less, the son of Mary the wife of Cleophas, Mar 15:40 which Cleophas was the brother of Joseph, the husband of Mary the mother of our Lord, as Eusebius, from Hegesippus, relates; and so our Lord and this James were brothers' children, as was supposed: or else the wife of Cleophas the mother of James, was sister to Mary the mother of Christ, as she is called, Joh 19:25 and so they were sisters' children, or own cousins; and thus Jerom (t), after much discourse on this subject, concludes that Mary the mother of James the less was the wife of Alphaeus, (or Cleophas, which is the same,) and the sister of Mary the mother of the Lord, whom the Evangelist John surnames Mary of Cleophas; and persons in such a relation, and even uncles and nephews, were called brethren by the Jews; see Gen 12:5 nor is James one of our Lord's disciples being called his brother, any contradiction to Joh 7:5 as the Jew (u) affirms, where it is said, "neither did his brethren believe in him"; since they might not believe in him then, and yet believe in him afterwards: besides, Christ had brethren or relations according to the flesh, distinct from his disciples and apostles, and his brethren among them; see Mat 10:1 such as were James, Judas, and Simon; nor does the Evangelist John say, that none of Christ's brethren believed in him, only that they that came to him and bid him go into Judea did not. Some have been of opinion that a third James, distinct from James the son of Zebedee and James the son of Alphaeus, is here meant; who was not of the twelve apostles, and was surnamed James the just, and called the brother of Christ because of his faith, wisdom, and becoming conversation; but certain it is, that this James was of the number of the apostles, as appears from the exceptive clause, "other of the apostles saw I none, save James", &c. and from his being put with Cephas and John, who were pillars and the chief among the apostles; and besides it was James the son of Alphaeus, who was surnamed the "just", and Oblias (w), and presided over the church at Jerusalem, and was a man of great esteem among the Jews; and is by (x) Josephus, as here, called the brother of Jesus.

(t) Advers. Helvidium, Tom. II. fol. 4. M. (u) R. Isaac, Chizzuk Emuna, par. 2. c. 8. p. 469. (w) Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 2. c. 23. Hieron. Catalog. Script. Eccl. sect. 3. fol. 89. (x) Antiqu. l. 20. c. 8. sect. 1.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

19 But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord’s brother.

Ver. 19. But other of the apostles] These were busily attending upon their particular charges and offices, according to Rom 12:7.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Save James the Lord’s brother - That the James here referred to was an apostle is clear. The whole construction of the sentence demands this supposition. In the list of the apostles in Mat 10:2-3, two of this name are mentioned, James the son of Zebedee and brother of John, and James the son of Alpheus. From the Acts of the Apostles, it is clear that there were two of this name in Jerusalem. Of these, James the brother of John was slain by Herod Act 12:2, and the other continued to reside in Jerusalem, Act 15:13; Act 21:13. This latter James was called James the Less Mar 15:40, to distinguish him from the other James, probably because he was the younger. It is probable that this was the James referred to here, as it is evident from the Acts of the Apostles that he was a prominent man among the apostles in Jerusalem. Commentators have not been agreed as to what is meant by his being the brother of the Lord Jesus. Doddridge understands it as meaning that he was “the near kinsman” or cousin-german to Jesus, for he was, says he, the son of Alpheus and Mary, the sister of the virgin; and if there were only two of this name, this opinion is undoubtedly correct.

In the Apostolical Constitutions (see Rosenmuller) three of this name are mentioned as apostles or eminent men in Jerusalem; and hence, many have supposed that one of them was the son of Mary the mother of the Lord Jesus. It is said Mat 13:55 that the brothers of Jesus were James and Joses, and Simon, and Judas; and it is remarkable that three of the apostles bear the same names; James the son of Alpheus, Simon Zelotes, and Judas, Joh 14:22. It is indeed possible, as Bloomfield remarks, that three brothers of our Lord and three of his apostles might bear the same names, and yet be different persons; but such a coincidence would be very remarkable, and not easily explained. But if it were not so, then the James here was the son of Alpheus, and consequently a cousin of the Lord Jesus. The word “brother” may, according to Scriptural usage, be understood as denoting a near kinsman. See Schleusher (Lexicon 2) on the word ἀδελφός adelphos. After all, however, it is not quite certain who is intended. Some have supposed that neither of the apostles of the name of James is intended, but another James who was the son of Mary the mother of Jesus. See Koppe in loc. But it is clear, I think, that one of the apostles is intended. Why James is particularly mentioned here is unknown. Since, however, he was a prominent man in Jerusalem, Paul would naturally seek his acquaintance. It is possible that the other apostles were absent from Jerusalem during the fifteen days when he was there.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

The apostles were at this time scattered, either through the persecution, or for the fulfilling of the work of their apostleship; so as probably there were at this time no more of the apostles at Jerusalem, except Peter, and James the less, the son of Alpheus, who is here called the brother of our Lord, as is generally thought, according to the Hebrew idiom, who were wont to call near kinsmen, brethren. Upon another journey which Paul made to Jerusalem, he saw others (as we shall hear in the next chapter); but that was several years after this his first journey thither.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

19. Save James—This is, no doubt, the James of Jerusalem. Act_21:18, and Mat_10:3. It is questioned, with little reason, we think, whether he is here called an apostle. The Greek may indeed be rendered: Other of the apostles saw I none, save that I saw James. But James has to be counted to make out the apostles of Act_9:27, where see note.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord"s brother (eteron delwn oujk eidon eij mhkwbon ton ajdelfoou); but no one besides of the apostles saw I, unless it were James the Lord"s brother. The words," unless it were," are here proposed as a rendering of eij mh, as betokening a certain degree of hesitancy on the apostle"s part as to the perfect justness of the exception which he makes. The reason of this will appear if we consider that "James the Lord"s brother" was not really one of the apostles; but nevertheless, through the position which he held in the Church of Jerusalem, and through various circumstances attaching to him, stood in general estimation so near to the revered twelve, that St. Paul felt he was required, in connection with his present statement, to make this reference to him, when affirming so solemnly that Cephas was the only apostle that he then saw. For a fuller discussion of the personality of "James the Lord"s brother," the reader is referred to the additional note at the end of this chapter. How it came about that St. Peter was the only one of the twelve that St. Paul then saw, there are no certain grounds for determining. The intimation in Act_8:1 that, in the persecution which ensued upon the martyrdom of Stephen, the apostles still remained at Jerusalem when they of the Church there were all scattered abroad throughout the regions of Judaea and Samaria, relates to a period two or three years previous. The state of things was no doubt now quite different; the Church had come together again; but the apostles may for the most part have been absent in the country, engaged in their apostolic labours, as St. Peter himself is soon after described as being (cf. Act_9:31, Act_9:32) The surmise that this was the cause appears more probable than the view which supposes them to have continued distrustful, now that the two great leaders, Cephas and James, had been won over to frankly and publicly recognize the new convert. A difficulty has been thought to result from a comparison of these words of St. Paul with St. Luke"s statement in Act_9:15, Act_9:16, that Barnabas took and brought him to "the apostles," and that he "was with them" going in and out at Jerusalem. That he was not with them for long was a fact not unknown to St. Luke, as we may, gather from what we read Act_22:18. There is, therefore, no discrepancy in that respect between the two representations. But is there no discrepancy between St. Luke"s mention of "the apostles" as then admitting Paul into partnership with them in public work, and St. Paul"s so emphatically affirming that it was Cephas alone of the apostles that he saw? We must acknowledge that there is the same kind and the same amount of discrepancy as e.g. obtains between St. Matthew saying that those who were crucified with Jesus reviled him, and St. Luke specifying that one did so, but that the other rebuked him. In all such cases, the more vague and general statement must in all fairness be accepted, but with the modification supplied by the one which is the more particular and definite. It seems to the present writer that there is a way of quite naturally accounting for the form in which St. Luke states the circumstances. It is as fellows. St. Paul had been two years in imprisonment at Rome when St. Luke compiled the Acts; that is, St. Luke wrote the book about A.D. 63 or 64, twenty-two or twenty-three years after St. Paul made this first visit of his to Jerusalem. Barnabas appears in the story as a disciple (Acts 4., fin. ) some years apparently before even the conversion of Saul. Considering, therefore, the lapse of time, it would seem a not at all improbable supposition that, when the Acts was written, he was no longer alive. And the tone in which he is spoken of in the book, whose author, as we know, was in close association with St. Paul, and no doubt both drew from the apostle"s inspiration many of the particulars he relates and reflected his feelings, is generally so kindly and respectful as to accord well with the supposition of Barnabas"s decease, and even of his then recent decease. The pensive, touching reference to his character in 11:24, introduced in the narrative in so unwonted a manner as it is, betokens this. Carefully does the historian indicate that Barnabas was the new convert"s sponsor with the at first distrustful brethren at Jerusalem; also that it was he that went and fetched Saul from his distant retirement at Tarsus to co-operate with him at Antioch; also that he linked him to himself in the eleemosynary journey to Jerusalem, and again under Divine direction in their great evangelistic tour in Asia Minor, in both of which expeditions Barnabas at the first appears as the leading figure of the two; after which comes the mournful disruption recorded at the close of the fifteenth chapter, the last reference to Barnabas in the Acts. That, however, this interruption of their brotherly attachment did not last long is shown by the respectful and sympathetic manner in which St. Paul, in writing to the Corinthians (9.), six or seven years after, speaks of the oneness in sentiment subsisting between Barnabas and himself in labouring for the gospel at their own charges. Since the time that St. Paul sent that letter to the Corinthians as well as this to the Galatians, some five years had elapsed when St. Luke wrote the Book of the Acts. All these considerations taken together agree perfectly well with the conception that Luke had heard his master, perhaps repeatedly, make pensive reference to his old relations with Barnabas now gone to his rest. "When the apostles at Jerusalem," he might say, "looked upon me coldly and distrustingly, he it was that took me by the hand the reader will note the pathos in the expression, ejpilabomenov aujton hgage and led me into their presence, and told them what the Lord had done with me!" What more natural than that Luke had heard Paul speaking thus, Barnabas"s dear venerated form looming in the far past before the apostle"s view as the principal object just then of reminiscence, the surrounding figures in the scene more indefinitely realized! But when, years before this, the apostle, Barnabas being still alive, had been writing to the Galatians, and with solemn carefulness as speaking in the sight of God, had set himself agonistically to state the facts in their very exactness, of course there would result a precision which in those tender reminiscences uttered to his bosom associate was not to be looked for.

"James the Lord"s brother." This verse has been the subject of much discussion. Many have considered the turn of expression used by the apostle to imply that the James here spoken of was himself one of the original apostolic body to which Cephas belonged. And from this it has further been inferred that the passage favours the notion that "James the Lord"s brother" was identical with "James the son of Alphaeus the word "brother" being interpreted to mean "near kinsman," and taken in the present ease to describe one conceived to have been in reality a first cousin. But there are so many serious difficulties and precarious assumptions attaching to this theory, that students of the sacred history have of late shown an unwillingness to acquiesce in the above-mentioned identification. They are struck by observing that, so far as has been shown, the notion that "James the Lord"s brother" was in reality only his cousin was never heard of in the Church till it was broached by Jerome very near the end of the fourth century (A.D. 392); and further, that in the New Testament the term "brothers," when used to describe family relationship, is always used in its usual and obvious sense of persons who were regarded as being children of the same father or of the same mother. When mention is made of James (the son of Zebedee) being the brother of John, or of Andrew being the brother of Simon Peter, the reader never stops to consider whether they might not have been cousins, but at once assumes that they were brothers in the ordinary acceptation of the term. In reference to the ease now before us, some in ancient times, as for example Helvidius against whom Jerome wrote the controversial treatise in which thetheory of cousinship is first found stated and argued for and some also quite recently, have supposed "the Lord"s brothers" to have been later children of his mother Mary, born of her union with Joseph. But, apart from any repugnance that has been felt to this view which has its origin in sentiments of pious reverence, not to speak of mariolatrous fanaticism, there is another hypothesis which seems to fit much better in with all the circumstances, namely, that which regards our "Lord"s brothers" as children of his adoptive father Joseph, whom everybody regarded as his father children born to Joseph in a former marriage. This view has been proved to have been, with only doubtful exceptions, the one generally accepted in the early Church for more than three centuries (see Bishop Lightfoot, "Galatians," Dissertation it., "The Brethren of the Lord"). This is scarcely the place for discussing at length the details of the critical controversy. I cannot, however, forbear drawing attention to one aspect of the question, which, so far as I am aware, has not been sufficiently considered. For the purpose of the present Commentary it has the recommendation of involving no subtleties of disputable interpretation, but of making its appeal at once to the common instincts of human feeling. We have the express testimony of St. John (Joh_7:5) that, down to within a few months of our Lord"s death, "his brothers did not believe on him." In the history of the Acts, indeed, immediately after the Ascension, we find them associated with that innermost circle of believers who, with the eleven, were devoutly waiting for "the Promise of the Father." But on the eve of the Feast of Tabernacles in the previous autumn, they had not as yet professed themselves to be Jesus" disciples. This statement of St. John"s is made of them as a body. No hint is given of any exception, either by St. John or by the Synoptists (Mat_12:46; Mar_3:2, 31; Luk_8:19) Ingenious combinations of various extremely questionable premisses would fain interpolate into the evangelist"s statement at least one exception; but none presents itself upon the face of the story. There the brethren of the Lord stand before us as unitedly holding aloof, and as even inclined to treat his claims with derision (Joh_7:3, Joh_7:4, Joh_7:8; comp. Mar_3:21) Which of those two hypotheses which we are now comparing with each other, as to the nature of their brother-ship to our Lord, is the one which the better agrees with this unquestionable fact? Let us first consider the one which supposes his brothers and his sisters to have formed an elder branch of Joseph"s family born of a former marriage. There must have been at least six in number living at the time of our Lord"s ministry, (Mar_6:3) and there may have been more than six then; and there may, again, have well been some others besides, then deceased. It is therefore probable that some of them James, for example, the eldest apparently of the brothers were adolescent, or even quite grown up at the time of their father"s second marriage. Judging front the ordinary experience of human households, what would seem likely to have been the attitude of feeling animating this whole group of brothers and sisters, and in particular animating James who would, of course, take the place of their representative and domestic champion, and who is shown in the Acts and by his own Epistle to have been a person of singularly grave, taciturn, and magisterial temperament both towards their probably youthful stepmother from the time of her marriage with their father, and towards the Lord Jesus himself during the period of his boyhood, youth, and early manhood? May it not be probably assumed that it was apt to be at least unsympathetic reserved? We know from the "Fear not" of the Divine message recorded Mat_1:20, that the circumstances attending on our adorable Lord"s incarnation well-nigh proved a stumbling-block even to the just-minded, pious, Heaven-directed Joseph. Is it conceivable that, in so small a town as Nazareth, misjudging gossip did not make itself during those months only too busy with a theme, the real character of which men could not possibly understand, and which yet was so sure to attract attention distressfully busy, both for the holy Virgin herself and for her affianced husband? And would none of that malign whispering percolate to the ears of the older members of Joseph"s family, depositing in their minds almost ineradicable seeds of prejudice against their stepmother and against her offspring? Shame and sorrow invested our Redeemer"s decease from the world; shame and sorrow overclouded also even his entrance into it; by the necessity of the ease, all, whether old or young, who after the flesh were then brought into close connection with him, were also brought into fires of temptation. out of which only much especial interposing grace could rescue them unscathed. At all events, the new brother whom Joseph"s already numerous family were called upon to accept must have been to their feeling no own brother of theirs; his mother was not their mother. This was a super-engrafted scion, half alien to the original stock to which they belonged. In ordinary domestic experience is not this usually of itself a source of jealousy and estrangement? We can well believe that, in course of time, the beauty of their stepmother"s character would be certain to win their esteem and their confidence. And that it really did so seems betokened by what we read in the evangelical history some thirty years after their father"s union with Mary, when he had himself, for some while apparently, departed this life; the mother and the brethren of Jesus, though not as yet knit together by mutual faith in him, are, however, seen acting in unison, as if swayed by their mutual feeling of family connection. (see Joh_2:12; Mar_3:31) It is, however, questionable whether the stainless purity and the exalted moral excellence which characterized their stepmother"s Son would in an equal degree draw their hearts to him. Of old, Joseph the son of the patriarch Jacob was isolated flora his elder halfbrothers by the very virtues which exalted him. They hated him, if in part for certain other causes of offence, yet no doubt mainly for this, that they felt that in moral quality he was not of them. But the contrast which obtained between the moral being of the Lord Jesus and his adoptive half-brothers must have been incomparably greater than that which made Joseph the "separated kern his brethren." He was altogether "holy and harmless," and therefore altogether "separate from sinners." True, his human nature and his human life touched theirs in a thousand ways; but none the less must they have been conscious that, in moral and spiritual temperament, he was not one of themselves. Must not this consciousness have been a source of inward annoyance? of an annoyance all the more fretting because they would, of course, be so wholly unable to understand how it was that such a difference obtained? Would not they too be not seldom "moved with envy" against this new Joseph? In intellectual gifts, and especially in the faculty of moral judgment and spiritual intuition, the youthful Jesus was, in the judgment of all around, and doubtless to his brethren"s own consciousness, incomparably their superior. Could such superiority have been acquiesced in by them easily and patiently in the case of one so much their junior, who in fact was at the best only half their brother? His views and conceptions of religious truth when be was twelve years old were such as astonished the doctors of the Law at Jerusalem; we therefore cannot but feel sure that, even in those earlier years of his life, his thoughts and reasonings were wont to move amongst the intensely loved revelations of God"s Word with a freedom wholly alien to their habits of mind; neither shackled by Judaical legalism, nor regardful of rabbinical hair-splitting, nor disposed to respect the traditions and dicta of the elders. To the James and the Jude, whose natural mental physiognomy, though in its now renewed Christianized aspect, is conspicuous to us in their Epistles, the strain of religious thinking and utterance which we may reverently believe to have been familiar with the youthful Redeemer must in the days of their as yet carnal and unripened religiousness have seemed alike repugnant and unintelligible. Granted, however, that they could neither appreciate nor comprehend, yet, as being so much older in years, they may well have deemed themselves authorized, by virtue of their domestic relation, to censure and rebuke. And supposing that they did undertake by argument to gainsay words of his which more especially offended them, how could it have been possible for them to stand their ground in encounter with One who in after years was seen in the supreme arena of the nation, confuting and putting to silence, and sternly rebuking, the most powerful reasoners in Jerusalem itself? Had he no occasion in those youthful days to employ against them similar implements of both intellectual and moral correction? And since they would not submit to be taught by him, would they not perforce resent their defeat? Under conditions such as these, is it not quite easy to imagine that, when the hour came for Jesus to be manifested to Israel, it found James and his brothers altogether unprepared to attach themselves to him as disciples; that they would be much more ready to stand aloof from him as at least an enthusiast nay, by-and-by to openly pronounce, as in fact they did, that he musthave gone clean out of his mind? This commends itself to our acceptance as a perfectly self-coherent hypothesis. Let us next turn our attention to the other interpretation of the relation, namely, that the brethren of the Lord were his own uterine brothers. A moment"s reflection shows how different the conditions would have been. On the supposition that they were his younger brothers, sons of his mother, then we may consider that, from their earliest years, they had been trained, and would naturally be disposed, to regard him with the profound deference which in a Jewish household was instinctively accorded to the firstborn. This natural sentiment of deference we must in all reason believe to have been intensified by their consciousness of his extraordinary mental gifts, both intellectual and moral, as well as by the estimation conceded to him by all around; while this sentiment would be sweetened in its tone by their sense of the fairness and the affectionateness with which he had always treated them, even when, as elder brother, and especially after their father"s death, he may have had occasion to control or reprove them. The high estimation with which their neighbours as well as their common mother regarded him would, in this case, have been no occasion of offence or jealousy; he being in blood-relationship one of their very selves, their representative, respect shown to him would have been rather a cause for pride: who (they would feel) should be so loved and honoured as their dear Jeshua? With such habits of willing affectionate deference, might it not be reasonably expected that, when he issued forth as the religious Teacher of his countrymen, his brethren would be found among his most cordial adherents? In that lower sense in which we are wont to employ the expression with reference to one another, they had always believed in him; they knew and therefore loved him too well not to do so: would it not have seemed strange if this constant attitude of their minds towards him had not now at least helped them forwards towards that higher faith which the evangelist denotes by the term? But they, one and all, did not believe in him! "The moral probability, that is, the probability founded upon the consideration of the natural effect of environing circumstances upon human character and action, affords an argument in favour of the former hypothesis which, to the present writer, appears of exceeding great weight, and in fact decisive. James must have been a son of our Lord"s adoptive father. But if the person here cited by the name of James was our Lord"s brother in the sense now given, he could not have been one of the twelve. How, then, are we to account for his being mentioned in this passage in a way which certainly does, prima facie, favour the supposition that he was an apostle? A solution has been sought in tile consideration that, in various places in the New Testament, the designation of "apostle" is applied to others besides those who were apostles in the highest sense. There were in truth apostles in a secondary sense; in that sense of ecclesiastical delegates which the reader will find discussed in the dissertation on the subject of "Apostles," in the Introduction. But this will not help us here. For

(1) James the Lord"s brother cannot be shown to have been an apostle in this secondary sense.

(2) On the other hand, Barnabas both. was such and is so designated (see p. 31., seqq. ). And Barnabas net only was at Jerusalem at the time here referred to by St. Paul, but was the very person that introduced Saul to "the apostles" as a true convert. (Act_9:27) The following seems to the present writer a more satisfactory explanation: From the time of the Ascension, the "brethren of the Lord" held, in the general estimation of believers, a position peculiar to themselves. This is evidenced by the manner in which, in Act_1:14, St. Luke refers to them. After enumerating the eleven apostles by their names, he connects with them, as forming with them an interior circle of disciples, "women wives, we may suppose, or near relatives of apostles, perhaps also some other most zealous female associates with the sacred body Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brethren." Further on in the history, in the account given in the fifteenth chapter of the conference of "the apostles and elders," the manner in which James, the eldest of those brothers, is presented to the reader when assuming the initiative in proposing the final decision, gives the impression, which has been almost universally acquiesced in, that he spoke as a presiding officer would speak who felt it his place authoritatively to slate the judgment which he anticipated the meeting would adopt. This impression tallies perfectly with the tradition of Church history a tradition which there is nothing in the New Testament to discountenance, but much to confirm that James was the presiding elder or bishop of the Church of Jerusalem. That he should by general consent have been called to occupy this position was very natural. He was distinguished by venerable family connection, being not only through his father a descendant of David"s royal lineage, but also the eldest "brother" of the Lord Christ. He had been especially honoured by Christ"s appearing to him singly after his resurrection. In personal character he is shown by his Epistle, as well as otherwise, as a man singularly remarkable for gravity, for habits of devotion, for intense single-minded earnestness, for magisterial prophet-like decisiveness of intellect; while, lastly, he was fitted by strictness of Mosaistic observance to be eminently acceptable to the Israelitish sentiments of the members of this particular Church. Altogether, it seems perfectly natural that he should have been called to preside in it; to be, at least in effect, "Bishop of Jerusalem," whether this particular title of "bishop," as afterwards currently understood, was in his lifetime accorded to him or not. At all events, it had then come to pass, and probably in the way now described had come to pass, that "James and Cephas and John" being "pillars" of were recognized as Christendom. The conference just referred to took place, it is true, some eleven years after that first visit of St. Paul"s to Jerusalem which he is here speaking of. In the account, however, given in the twelfth chapter of the Acts, of events occurring six or eight years before the conference (the precise dates of these events are assigned differently by different chronologers), and only three or four years, possibly less, after this visit, we have an indication afforded us that James held this leading representative position even then. We are told that St. Peter, on the night of his miraculous release from prison, in view of himself withdrawing for a time from the neighbourhood, bade the believers whom he found assembled at the house of John Mark"s mother, to "announce these tidings to James and the brethren." This putting forward of his name, coupled with what we read further on, gives us a glimpse of James the Lord"s brother as even then a foremost figure in the rulership of the believers of Jerusalem the very foremost figure, it should seem, among Christians next to the august twelve. Such being James"s position, we can understand how it was that St. Paul felt that, though his having seen James was not precisely the same thing as seeing another apostle, yet it was tantamount thereto in its bearing upon the autobiographical statement which he is now making, and that therefore it was a fact that as much required to be taken account of as if he had actually been an apostle. If he had said, "Other than Cephas saw I of the apostles none," without mentioning James, the statement, though in strict literalness true, would none the less have conveyed a false impression, and been as an argument illusive. He therefore, as a sort of after-thought for the sentence without the addition is grammatically already complete adds the words, "unless it were James the Lord"s brother." Attention was drawn above, in the note on ver. 7, to the occasional use of eij mh as "partially exceptive." It is in this way only that St. James is here by implication grouped with the apostles. He shared certain qualities attaching to them which were so relative to the matter in hand that the writer could not in this reference pass him by without mention. It is in a somewhat similar way that "the brethren of the Lord" are grouped with apostles in 1Co_9:5. One remark more on the words, "the Lord"s brother." They have been commonly supposed to have been added for the purpose simply of making it clear what particular individual among several bearing the name of "James" the writer is referring to. This view of their bearing seems open to question. There was only one man whom the recital of the name "James" would naturally and of course at once recall to the minds of St. Paul"s Gentile readers the prominent leading figure in the Israelite Church at Jerusalem. Accordingly we find that when elsewhere St. Paul has occasion to refer to him, he feels no need of appending a defining description, but simply gives the name. So Gal_2:9, Gal_2:12; 1Co_15:7. Similarly, St. Luke, when referring to plainly the same person, not once in the Acts thinks it necessary to explain what James it is that he is speaking of. (see Act_12:17 Act_15:13 Act_21:18) He adds a further description of the individual intended, only when it is not the Lord"s brother, as in Act_12:2. Similarly also Jude, in his Epistle, when marking his own personalityand therewith his claim to attention, designates himself as "Jude the brother of James," taking it for granted that his readers would understand what James was meant. St. Paul"s purpose in adding the words seems rather to be this: he wishes to indicate why this James, not being an apostle, yet needs to be here brought forward at all. Viewed in this light, the clause tells against the supposition of his being one of the twelve rather than in its favour.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

But other of the apostles I saw none, save James the brother (that is, the kinsman) of the Lord - Therefore when Barnabas is said to have "brought him into the apostles," Acts ix, 27, only St. Peter and St James are meant.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

see note on vs 18

Martin Luther — Commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians (1535), English translation by Theodore Graebner (Zondervan, 1939) — public domain (U.S. copyright not renewed). Text from a community e-Sword module.

But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother .

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

19. Other of the apostles saw I none. The other apostles were probably absent among churches of Judea (Acts 9:31). Save James. Not James the brother of John, an apostle, but James, “the brother of the Lord,” named in Acts 12:17; 15:13; 21:18. This James was not one of the Twelve, but rose to great dignity and influence in the church at Jerusalem. He is called here “the brother of the Lord,” to distinguish him from “James, the son of Zebedee,” and “James, the son of Alpheus,” who were of the Twelve. See Introduction to Epistle of James.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

19. ἕτερον δὲ, i.e. a second (Gal 1:6 note).

τῶν ἀποστόλων (Gal 1:1 note) οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ Ἰύκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίον. St Peter was to St Paul the object of attraction, not St James, from whom the emissaries of Gal 2:12 came, and St Paul saw no other of the Apostles—save etc. The phrase suggests that St Paul put St James in a different category from the series of apostles to which St Peter belonged, though it does not exclude his possession of the title “Apostle” in some sense (cf. Luk 4:26 for this use of εἰ μὴ). See Hort, Epistle of St James, p. xix. and for εἰ μή p. xvi.

By “the brother” we are probably to understand half-brother, a son of Joseph by a former wife. This (the “Epiphanian” theory) is defended by Lightfoot in his classical essay contained in his commentary on our epistle. For a learned defence of the theory that “brother” means full-brother, a younger son of Joseph and Mary (the “Helvidian” theory), see J. B. Mayor’s edition of the Epistle of St James, pp. v–xxxvi. See also the discussion in the Expositor VII. 6 and 7. A third theory is that he was a cousin (the “Hieronymian” theory).

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

19.] This verse admits of two interpretations, between which other considerations must decide. (1) That James, the Lord’s brother, was one of the Twelve, and the only one besides Peter whom Paul saw at this visit: (2) that he was one τῶν ὰποστόλων, but not necessarily of the Twelve. Of these, (1) apparently cannot be: for after the choosing of the Twelve (Joh 6:70), the ἀδελφοί of our Lord did not believe on Him (Joh 7:5): an expression (see note there) which will not admit of any of His brethren having then been His disciples. We must then adopt (2): which is besides in consonance with other notices respecting the term ἀπόστολος, and the person heve mentioned. I reserve the subject for full discussion in the prolegomena to the Ep. of James. See also notes, Mat 10:3; Mat 13:55; Joh 7:5.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

19. ἕτερον δὲ τῶν ἀποστόλων οὐκ εἶδον, εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον τὸν ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου. “and no other of the apostles did I see except James the brother of the Lord.” On the use of ἕτερον, see detached note, p. 420. It is evidently used here in its closest approximation to ἄλλος, denoting merely numerical non-identity, not qualitative distinction. εἰ μή means here, as always before a noun, “except.” The only question is whether εἰ μὴ Ἰάκωβον, etc., is an exception to the whole of the preceding statement ἕτερον … οὐκ εἶδον, or only a part of it, οὐκ εἶδον. Either is in accordance with usage (see Th. εἰ, III 8 c β, and such cases as Luk 4:26, Luk 4:27, Rom 11:15, etc.). In this passage, however, the view which would make the exception apply to a part only of the preceding assertion is excluded, since Paul certainly can not mean to say that he saw no one in Jerusalem except Peter and James, or even, according at least to Act 9:27, no person of importance. The phrase must probably be taken as stating an exception to the whole of the preceding assertion, and as implying that James was an apostle. The assumption that the term ἀπόστολος is applied to James in a broad and loose sense only (so Sief., e. g.) is without good ground in usage and is especially unjustified in view of the fact that the term ἀποστόλων under which James is by the exceptive phrase included, refers primarily to the Twelve. Cf. detached note on Ἀπόστολος, p. 363.

James, here designated the brother of the Lord, is doubtless the same who is similarly spoken of in Mar 6:3, and simply as James in Gal 2:9, Gal 2:12, 1Co 15:7, Act 15:13, Act 15:21:18; cf. also Joh 7:5, 1Co 9:5. He is never mentioned as one of the Twelve; it is rather to be supposed that he was brought to believe in Jesus by the vision recorded in 1Co 15:7. He early took a prominent place in the church at Jerusalem (Gal 2:9, Gal 2:12, Act 15:13ff.), and was known in later tradition as the first bishop of that church (Eus. Hist. Eccl. II 1). The view of Jerome which identifies James the brother of the Lord with James the son of Alphæus (see defence of it by Meyrick in Smith,DB art. “James,” and criticism by Mayor in HDB art. “Brethren of the Lord”) rests on no good evidence. Nor is there any positive evidence for the theory that he was older than Jesus, being the son of Joseph and a wife previous to Mary. See Ltft.’s defence of this (Epiphanian) view in Dissertation II, appended to his Galatians, and reprinted as Dissertation I, in his Dissertations on the Apostolic Age; and Farrar’s argument for the (Helvidian) view that the brothers of the Lord were sons of Joseph and Mary, in Early Days of Christianity, chap. XIX, and in Smith,DB art. “Brothers of the Lord”; also Mayor, op. cit., and Cone, art. “James” in Encyc. Bib. Mat 1:25 and Luk 1:7 naturally imply that the early church knew of children of Mary younger than Jesus. It does not indeed follow that all the six children named in Mar 6:3 were borne by her. But neither is there any direct evidence that there were children of Joseph by a former marriage. Joh 19:26, Joh 19:27 might suggest it (cf. Ltft. u. s. ) but its late date and the uncertainty whether the statement is in intent historical or symbolic diminish its value for historical purposes. On the other hand the implication of the infancy narrative of Mt. and Lk. that Joseph was not the father of Jesus and hence that his sons by a former marriage were not brothers of Jesus, can not be cited against the Epiphanian view; for not only does this presuppose a strictness in the use of the term brother which is unsustained by usage, but the evidence of this passage as to the time at which the title “brother of the Lord” was given to James, and the evidence of the Pauline letters in general (cf. on 4:4) as to the time when the theory of the virgin birth of Jesus became current, make it nearly certain that the former much preceded the latter.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Save James [ει μη] . With the usual exceptive sense. I saw none save James. Not, I saw none other of the apostles, but I saw James. Jas. is counted as an apostle, though not reckoned among the twelve. For Paul 's use of "apostle," see on 1Th 1:1, and comp. 1Co 14:4 - 7.

The Lord 's brother. Added in order to distinguish him from James the son of Zebedee (Mt 4:21; Mt 10:2; Mr 10:35), who was still living, and from James the son of Alphaeus (Mt 10:3). 42 The Lord 's brother means that James was a son of Joseph and Mary. This view is known as the Helvidian theory, from Helvidius, a layman of Rome, who wrote, about 380, a book against mariolatry and ascetic celibacy. The explanations which differ from that of Helvidius have grown, largely, out of the desire to maintain the perpetual virginity of Mary. Jerome has given his name to a theory known as the Hieronymian put forth in reply to Helvidius, about 383, according to which the brethren of the Lord were the sons of his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Alphaeus or Clopas, and therefore Jesus ' cousins. A third view bears the name of Epiphanius, Bishop of Salamis in Cyprus (ob. 404), and is that the Lord 's brothers were sons of Joseph by a former wife. 43

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.